A GIS Based Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Quality of Life Index in The Provinces of Turkey

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 2, 571 - 583, 15.04.2021

Cem Kırlangıçoğlu

https://doi.org/10.16984/saufenbilder.867361

Öz

Throughout history, human beings have lived to survive, have struggled to have a job and have enough income for a better life. But at the point we have reached today, people's quality of life not only depends on wealth and employment, but also on many subjective factors, including the conditions of the environment in which they live, physical and mental health, education, recreation, security, leisure, freedom, human rights, social belonging and happiness level. Although this situation is related with the individuals at micro scale, it is one of the important focal points of central and local governments on macro scale. For administrators, revealing regional differences in well-being is an important criterion for eliminating social inequalities. There are many different multi criteria decision making based studies calculated the index of quality of life in 81 provinces of Turkey in accordance with 11 dimensions and 41 indicators determined by Turkstat. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of life studies and rankings of cities based on six different statistical methods. GIS based IDW interpolation technique was used to understand the spatial distribution of well-being index and make an accurate comparison of the calculation methodologies. As a result of the study, it was seen that different methods performed on the same data gave very different results from each other.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Quality of Life Index, Statistics, GIS, MCDM, IDW

Kaynakça

• [1] A. Çağlar, "İllerin Yaşam Kalitesi: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Verileriyle Veri Zarflama Analizi’ne Dayalı Bir Endeks," Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 875-902, 2020.
• [2] WHO, "WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life," World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
• [3] M. Şeker, "Quality of Life Index: A Case Study of Istanbul," Ekonometri ve İstatistik, no. 23, pp. 1-15, 2015.
• [4] C. Geray, "Kentsel Yaşam Kalitesi ve Belediyeler," Türk İdare Dergisi, no. 421, p. 323–345, Aralık 1998.
• [5] S. Alpaykut, Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 29, pp. 367-395, 2017.
• [6] TURKSTAT, "Well-Being Index for Provinces," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://turkstatweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1106.
• [7] Başarsoft, "Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) Nedir?," Ankara, 2020.
• [8] A. Apaydın and Ö. Türkşen, "ÇOK ÖLÇÜTLÜ KARAR VERME YÖNTEMLERİ - II," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://acikders.ankara.edu.tr/course/view.php?id=5704.
• [9] M. Monjezi, H. Dehghani, T. N. Singh, A. R. Sayadi and A. Gholinejad, "Application of TOPSIS method for selecting the most appropriate blast design," Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 5, pp. 95-101, 2012.
• [10] A. Charnes, W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 429-444, 1978.
• [11] S. Opricovic and G. H. Tzeng, "Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 445-455, 2004.
• [12] H. Dinçer and A. Görener, "Performance Evaluation Using AHP-VIKOR and AHP-TOPSIS Approaches: The Case of Service Sector," Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, pp. 244-260, 2011.
• [13] M. T. Chu, J. Shyu, G. H. Tzeng and R. Khosla, "Comparison Among Three Analytical Methods for Knowledge Communities Group Decision Analysis," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1011-1024, 2007.
• [14] S. Opricovic and G. H. Tzeng, "Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Other Outranking Methods," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 178, no. 2, pp. 514-529, 2007.
• [15] H. U. Yüce, "Türkiye'deki Yaşanılabilir İller Sıralaması," Dış Ticaret Enstitüsü, 2018.
• [16] M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat and Z. Turskis, "Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using A New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance From Average Solution (EDAS)," Informatica, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 435-451, 2015.
• [17] E. Çakır, "Elektronik Belge Yönetim Sistemi (Ebys) Yazılımı Seçiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri: Bir Belediye Örneği," Business, Economics and Management Research Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15-30, 2018.
• [18] C. Kahraman, M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, S. C. Onar, M. Yazdani and B. Oztaysi, "Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: An application to solid waste disposal site selection," Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-12, 2017.
• [19] S. H. Zolfani, M. H. Aghdaie, A. Derakhti, E. K. Zavadskas and M. H. M. Varzandeh, "Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective: An application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating," Expert systems with applications, vol. 40, no. 17, pp. 7111-7121, 2013.
• [20] E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene and A. Zakarevicius, "Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment," Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 3-6, 2012.
• [21] S. Lashgari, J. Antuchevičienė, A. Delavari and O. Kheirkhah, "Using QSPM and WASPAS methods for determining outsourcing strategies," Journal of Business Economics and Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 729-743, 2014.
• [22] A. Özbek, "Türkiye’deki İllerin EDAS ve WASPAS Yöntemleri ile Yaşanabilirlik Kriterlerine Göre Sıralanması," Kırıkkale University Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 177-200, 2019.